At this point I have just received the digital signature of ISOC NL. This means at this point there are only two ALSes who have yet to sign: FITUG Terre des Femmes I have written directly to Dr. Heike Jensen to see if she is keeping up with the correspondence and asking if she believes TDF will be joining the MoU. To treat both ALSes equally I will do the same thing tomorrow. My sincere hope is that we can, at this point, actually get the last two digital signatures and as a result no longer have to have multiple votes, or more complex votes. Speaking personally, at the end of a long day, I must say I very much hope we can all find a way to move forward without multiple votes and with a compromise allowing a vote on a number of board seats to be held. That, to me, represents the best of a democratic process: when consensus is not possible, a vote is held. With one of the three ALAC candidates having withdrawn his name from being a possible board candidate, the maximum number of seats to be chosen from if we keep the list of 5, 7, and 9, would mean that all those willing to serve on the board would be able to do so from the entire list of nominees. My hope is that everyone will be willing to accept the dual votes: on the number of seats, and the candidates for the board, and allow a democratic vote to determine the result, rather than seeking to insist on one particular proposal or another. On 09/05/07, Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu> wrote:

Nick Ashton-Hart ha scritto:

...

We (Susie and myself) will therefore setup a vote to start this Friday, when the election would have started, and ending on the same date the election would have ended, with this question:

Please note that if it turns out that you can enjoy rights without signing the related agreement, my organization will consider terminating the agreement. Why should we sign a contract if it is not necessary?

Anyway, if you really want a vote on that, let's do this in parallel; but let's not delay the rest of the procedure. I think that further delays are unacceptable. We already stretched the original schedule a lot, we accepted late nominations without objection, we encouraged those who had not signed yet to do it now so that they could still participate in the vote. Many of us here accepted lots and lots of compromises, trying to build a home that can be good both for techies and for activists, for groups and for individuals; and we still receive messages stating "the only solution is to do exactly as I say". I think that ICANN should be more supportive of constructive contributions and less accommodating with destructive ones.

In the end, people have to realize that either they believe in this process, and so sign the MoU and accept to live with the diversity of opinions in the group, or they do not, and so they stop participating. Just staying half way, posting objections to each and every step forward, is neither useful nor reasonable for anyone. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

-- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart